3 ms·

I think this is more or less obviously wrong. Imagine a primitive society inventing the microscope and then making it illegal, perhaps going so far as to make a

by pharke 7y ago

I think this is more or less obviously wrong. Imagine a primitive society inventing the microscope and then making it illegal, perhaps going so far as to make all types of lenses illegal even those used for eyeglasses. Now you might have small numbers of people willing to experiment with lenses and microscopy in secret but if the society wages a war on glass and actively persecutes and imprisons anyone involved in the lens business it's going to make it very difficult for anyone to make any progress and those that do are going to be people on the fringe with little ability to pursue their research or communicate it to others. It seems possible to me that psychedelics may be a form of "microscope for the mind" that makes clear details and inner workings that we were not able to see otherwise. It won't revolutionize our understanding over night since we would still need to build a science around it just as we did with the microscope when we discovered a world we had only inklings of before.

ralusek 7y ago
The microscope was a tool for observing a new layer of objective, real, reproducible phenomenon within a previously inaccessible layer of our universe. Now, considering the conversation we're having, feel free to take "objective and real" with a grain of salt, but what I mean is that they are internally consistent, verifiable, reproducible, etc. Psychedelics have so far proven to be capable of temporarily rewiring our already highly flawed, subjective consciousness computers, in ways that can be potentially useful, but mostly seem to produce epiphanies that are rooted entirely in subjectivity, entirely fabricated. I don't really care at all if you had an experience that told you that all life existed on a 4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time. I do care, though, if you saw some behavior in a bacteria through a microscope which other people can observe and similarly draw their own judgements from. That doesn't mean that I don't think that already intelligent people can't benefit from an occasional new perspective, potentially brought about by psychedelics in the same way that it could be brought on by a move to a new country, or a walk outside, but that doesn't mean that I think that psychedelics are the gateway to an entire frontier on consciousness.
- pharke 7y ago
  My point was not about the validity of psychedelic experiences. It was about the fact that we have outright banned all avenues of research into these alterations in consciousness so we can't even find out if there are reproducible effects across individuals. If you did care about scientific inquiry and reproducibility then you would also be against these absurd restrictions. Because of this self-imposed ignorance we're just now beginning to see that psychedelics and other psychoactives can be used to treat a variety of psychological afflictions. I don't think you grasp how important it is to have access to compounds that can produce fundamental alterations to our conscious perception that take effect immediately, have few to no side effects and are completely reversible. Only TDCS and TMS have come anywhere close to that and their effects are nowhere near as powerful or significant. This isn't about taking a break from reality, doing some yoga, and instagramming your latest shower thought. It's being able to pry open the black box of your own consciousness and poking around inside to see what happens without the necessity of brain surgery and risk of permanent physical or mental disability. By the way "subjective consciousness computers" sounds about as accurate as "4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time". Both are little better than word salad with only tenuous connection to the things they're attempting to describe.
  - ralusek 7y ago
    How is describing our brains as "consciousness computers" inaccurate? Our brains have so many analogous components to computers. Both have working memory, long term memory, both have processors proficient in either linear or parallel processing, and the way our neurons interact formed the basis for neutral networks in software. You also seem to think that I believe it's a good thing that psychedelics are illegal, when I have explicitly said otherwise. I think people should be able to do with their body as they wish, and research into the effects could produce some utility. But what you're talking about here, having psychedelics help "treat a variety of psychological afflictions," isn't what I would consider to be pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration, although that's ultimately a matter of preference.
    - pharke 7y ago

by pharke 7y ago

ralusek 7y ago

The microscope was a tool for observing a new layer of objective, real, reproducible phenomenon within a previously inaccessible layer of our universe. Now, considering the conversation we're having, feel free to take "objective and real" with a grain of salt, but what I mean is that they are internally consistent, verifiable, reproducible, etc. Psychedelics have so far proven to be capable of temporarily rewiring our already highly flawed, subjective consciousness computers, in ways that can be potentially useful, but mostly seem to produce epiphanies that are rooted entirely in subjectivity, entirely fabricated. I don't really care at all if you had an experience that told you that all life existed on a 4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time. I do care, though, if you saw some behavior in a bacteria through a microscope which other people can observe and similarly draw their own judgements from. That doesn't mean that I don't think that already intelligent people can't benefit from an occasional new perspective, potentially brought about by psychedelics in the same way that it could be brought on by a move to a new country, or a walk outside, but that doesn't mean that I think that psychedelics are the gateway to an entire frontier on consciousness.

pharke 7y ago
My point was not about the validity of psychedelic experiences. It was about the fact that we have outright banned all avenues of research into these alterations in consciousness so we can't even find out if there are reproducible effects across individuals. If you did care about scientific inquiry and reproducibility then you would also be against these absurd restrictions. Because of this self-imposed ignorance we're just now beginning to see that psychedelics and other psychoactives can be used to treat a variety of psychological afflictions. I don't think you grasp how important it is to have access to compounds that can produce fundamental alterations to our conscious perception that take effect immediately, have few to no side effects and are completely reversible. Only TDCS and TMS have come anywhere close to that and their effects are nowhere near as powerful or significant. This isn't about taking a break from reality, doing some yoga, and instagramming your latest shower thought. It's being able to pry open the black box of your own consciousness and poking around inside to see what happens without the necessity of brain surgery and risk of permanent physical or mental disability. By the way "subjective consciousness computers" sounds about as accurate as "4 dimensional tetrahedron rotating through time". Both are little better than word salad with only tenuous connection to the things they're attempting to describe.
- ralusek 7y ago
  How is describing our brains as "consciousness computers" inaccurate? Our brains have so many analogous components to computers. Both have working memory, long term memory, both have processors proficient in either linear or parallel processing, and the way our neurons interact formed the basis for neutral networks in software. You also seem to think that I believe it's a good thing that psychedelics are illegal, when I have explicitly said otherwise. I think people should be able to do with their body as they wish, and research into the effects could produce some utility. But what you're talking about here, having psychedelics help "treat a variety of psychological afflictions," isn't what I would consider to be pushing frontiers forwards further and faster than space exploration, although that's ultimately a matter of preference.
  - pharke 7y ago